NutritionFactLabel VS React

NutritionFactLabel's answer

Three reasons, and one honest reason not to.

• You sell in more than one country. Most competitors are strong on FDA and thin everywhere else. If you need a US panel, a Canadian bilingual table with the FOP symbol, and an EU declaration for the same SKU, that is one recipe here instead of three tools.
• You can check our work. Every format has a public reference page citing the paragraph it implements, readable without an account. Compliance software that will not show you its sources is asking for trust it has not earned.
• Print-ready vector output. PDF, SVG, EPS and AI, so your printer gets a real vector file rather than a PNG someone has to redraw.

Where we lose: several competitors allow unlimited recipes on every paid plan, and we cap at 25 or 100. If you have hundreds of SKUs in one market and no international requirement, one of them is probably the better buy. Our own comparison pages say so.

NutritionFactLabel's answer

Anyone who has to put a compliant panel on a package, in roughly this order:

• DTC food and beverage brands taking a product to retail for the first time, who need an FDA panel and a barcode and do not want to pay a consultant for either.
• Supplement brands, who need Supplement Facts under 21 CFR 101.36 rather than Nutrition Facts, and often the child, prenatal or two-age-group variants.
• Exporters and co-packers selling the same SKU into several markets, where one product needs a US panel, a Canadian bilingual table, an EU declaration and sometimes a Mexican octagon warning.
• Regulatory consultants and food scientists. The free tools are aimed squarely at them: the RACC lookup, the nutrient content claim validator and the PDP type-size calculator.
• Packaging designers, who need vector output that drops into artwork rather than a raster image.

The common thread is that compliance is a gate they have to clear, not their profession. The site is available in 10 languages for the same reason.

NutritionFactLabel's answer

Coverage and citations.

Most nutrition label tools cover the United States and stop there. NFL ships 152 label formats across 114 countries from a single recipe: FDA Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts, EU 1169/2011 and Nutri-Score, Canadian bilingual panels plus the "High in" front-of-pack symbol, Mexican NOM-051 octagons, Brazil's ANVISA magnifier, India's FSSAI star rating, China GB 28050, Codex, and around a hundred more.

Every format is cited to the paragraph of the regulation it implements, and each one has its own reference page you can read before you sign up. If our panel and your regulatory reviewer disagree, you can see exactly which rule we applied.

The other unusual part is the 23 free tools that need no account at all: the RACC lookup from 21 CFR 101.12, an FDA nutrient content claim validator, a Canadian FOP symbol checker, a PDP type-size calculator, and more. They are genuinely free rather than a trial.

NutritionFactLabel's answer

NFL started from a gap that is easy to see once you look for it: nutrition label software is overwhelmingly built for the United States, and a product that crosses a border needs a different panel, different rounding, a different reference table and sometimes a front-of-pack warning that does not exist in US law at all.

So the build went the other way round. Instead of shipping an FDA generator and bolting other countries on later, the regulation data came first: 152 formats across 114 countries, each one encoded from the actual text of the rule and cited to the paragraph it comes from. The generator sits on top of that dataset rather than the other way around.

Two decisions followed from it. Every regulation has a public reference page you can read without an account, because compliance software that hides its sources is asking to be trusted on faith. And the 23 tools that fell out of the dataset along the way, the RACC table, the claim thresholds, the type-size rules, were left free and un-gated, because they are lookups against public law rather than a product.

NutritionFactLabel's answer

• Frontend: vanilla JavaScript, no framework. Built with Vite, styled with Tailwind CSS. Labels render as SVG so export stays vector down to the print file.
• Prerendering: every public page is prerendered to static HTML at build time, so regulation pages and tools are readable without running JavaScript.
• Backend: Supabase, meaning Postgres with row-level security, auth, and edge functions for server-side label export and billing webhooks.
• Hosting: Cloudflare Pages, served from the edge.
• Ingredient data: USDA FoodData Central.
• Billing: Freemius.
• Fonts: the FDA-specified label faces are embedded in the app rather than loaded from a CDN, so a panel renders with the same glyphs and the same measured widths on every operating system. That matters more than it sounds: type size is a legal requirement, not a style choice.